linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] s390/vfio-ap: No need to disable IRQ after queue reset

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20210121113438.2e40c5f9.pasic@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Jan 2021 11:34:38 +0100
From:   Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
Cc:     Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Harald Freudenberger <freude@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com, alex.williamson@...hat.com,
        kwankhede@...dia.com, fiuczy@...ux.ibm.com, frankja@...ux.ibm.com,
        david@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] s390/vfio-ap: No need to disable IRQ after queue
 reset

On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 09:20:44 +0100
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 08:20:08 +0100
> Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
[..]
> > --- a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h
> > +++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h
> > @@ -88,11 +88,6 @@ struct ap_matrix_mdev {
> >  	struct mdev_device *mdev;
> >  };
> >  
> > -extern int vfio_ap_mdev_register(void);
> > -extern void vfio_ap_mdev_unregister(void);
> > -int vfio_ap_mdev_reset_queue(unsigned int apid, unsigned int apqi,
> > -			     unsigned int retry);
> > -
> >  struct vfio_ap_queue {
> >  	struct ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev;
> >  	unsigned long saved_pfn;
> > @@ -100,5 +95,10 @@ struct vfio_ap_queue {
> >  #define VFIO_AP_ISC_INVALID 0xff
> >  	unsigned char saved_isc;
> >  };
> > -struct ap_queue_status vfio_ap_irq_disable(struct vfio_ap_queue *q);
> > +
> > +int vfio_ap_mdev_register(void);
> > +void vfio_ap_mdev_unregister(void);  
> 
> Nit: was moving these two necessary?
> 

No not strictly necessary. I decided that having the data types
first and the function prototypes in one place after the former
is nicer.

> > +int vfio_ap_mdev_reset_queue(struct vfio_ap_queue *q,
> > +			     unsigned int retry);
> > +
> >  #endif /* _VFIO_AP_PRIVATE_H_ */
> > 
> > base-commit: 9791581c049c10929e97098374dd1716a81fefcc  
> 
> Anyway, if I didn't entangle myself in the various branches, this seems
> sane.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
> 

Thank you very much!

Regards,
Halil